From CNN: (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/30/gop.purple.hearts/index.html)
Delegates to the Republican National Convention found a new way to take a jab at Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's Vietnam service record: by sporting adhesive bandages with small purple hearts on them.
Morton Blackwell, a prominent Virginia delegate, has been handing out the heart-covered bandages to delegates, who've worn them on their chins, cheeks, the backs of their hands and other places.
Funny stuff!
thorian
August 31st, 2004, 03:18 PM
I dont think that is funny in the least.
It is like some fat *** who burns a american flag in protest.
Both what theese delegates are doing and what Kerry did by throwing the "RIBBONS" away is a disgrace.
It mocks every man that fought and died in that uniform.
imaeditedbysowulo
August 31st, 2004, 03:27 PM
What's funny is that the Republicans think that is funny.
WebHead
August 31st, 2004, 03:30 PM
Just for clarification:
The statement Kerry was making by throwing his ribbons away was that he was angry about how his government lied to him just like the government of today is lying to the American people of today.
But more importantly,.. I don't find that very funny that these people who are representing the republicans who are supposed to be acting as role models, are busy making fun of people who served in our military during war. They are making light of an American soldier that was wounded in battle. That is about as immature, rude and low class as anyone can get.
Ya_know
August 31st, 2004, 03:30 PM
I don't actually find it funny at all. Yes Kerry's record deserves some scrutiny, but this kind of crap is not right.
drewmaztech
August 31st, 2004, 03:34 PM
Plant those delegates into the Vietnam war and see how they laugh then.
Zil
August 31st, 2004, 03:39 PM
My grandfather received a Purple Heart in WWII. He got a large amount of German mortar schrapnel in the buttocks, when climbing down a ladder in northern Italy. I think he was a hero and deserved his Purple Heart.
Although I don't like Kerry at all, the Purple Heart Band-aids was in poor taste as it seems to mock the Purple Heart itself.
thorian
August 31st, 2004, 03:41 PM
Plant those delegates into the Vietnam war and see how they laugh then.
Im not pissed off about just Kerry and just Vietnam. What they are doing is a insult to George Washington (who instilled the order) the continental army and every one who served and was either wounded or killed in battle in the Revolutionary War, WWII Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Gulf 1, Gulf 2, ( I pourposefully left out the wars and conflects that the Purple heart was not given in,)
+++Edited+++
WW1 was removed the purple heart in its current state was enacted in 1932. In the Revolution the award was known as the Badge of Military Meritand was given only 3 times.
thorian
August 31st, 2004, 03:43 PM
My grandfather received a Purple Heart in WWII. He got a large amount of German mortar schrapnel in the buttocks, when climbing down a ladder in northern Italy. I think he was a hero and deserved his Purple Heart.
Although I don't like Kerry at all, the Purple Heart Band-aids was in poor taste as it seems to mock the Purple Heart itself.
What he Said.
My great great Uncle met his end in WWI to German MG Fire He was 14 and lied about his age to serve.
**** Kerry and **** these Conservitave *******s
Cleetus
August 31st, 2004, 03:43 PM
Im not pissed off about just Kerry and just Vietnam. What they are doing is a insult to George Washington (who instilled the order) the continental army and every one who served and was either wounded or killed in battle in the Revolutionary War WWI WWII Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Gulf 1, Gulf 2, ( I pourposefully left out the wars and conflects that the Purple heart was not given in)
Um, wasn't it given in the Civil war?
WebHead
August 31st, 2004, 03:46 PM
If you guys want,.. my John Kerry campaign advisor (volunteer group) gave me a phone number we can call to complain about this. It's a phone number that goes directly to the Bush campaign headquarters to demand Bush to condemn this disrespectful act. I have the number at home and will post it later tonight for those that want to file a complaint about this.
thorian
August 31st, 2004, 03:52 PM
Um, wasn't it given in the Civil war?
Not according to http://www.purpleheart.org/ there may have been a medal simalar.
Zil
August 31st, 2004, 03:53 PM
If you guys want,.. my John Kerry campaign advisor (volunteer group) gave me a phone number we can call to complain about this. It's a phone number that goes directly to the Bush campaign headquarters to demand Bush to condemn this disrespectful act. I have the number at home and will post it later tonight for those that want to file a complaint about this.
It was some @sshat delegate that did this. For crying out loud, I don't call Kerry's campaign because of something Michael Moore wrote/did/shot/ate on his own. Maybe your time would be better spent doing something else.
thirdfey
August 31st, 2004, 04:09 PM
I'm wondering how long till it turns from delegates having the band-aids to george bush wearing them or supporters of george bush sponsoring the band-aids.
techs
August 31st, 2004, 04:15 PM
Absolutely tasteless and disrespectful.
But to Bush Republicans our military personnel are throw aways anyway. Trot them out for the rousing round of applause. Then cut their benefits and send them into battle with out enough troops, or equipment.
I wonder how McCain feels about speaking for Bush now?
Zil
August 31st, 2004, 04:23 PM
Absolutely tasteless and disrespectful.
But to Bush Republicans our military personnel are throw aways anyway. Trot them out for the rousing round of applause. Then cut their benefits and send them into battle with out enough troops, or equipment.
I wonder how McCain feels about speaking for Bush now?
Yes, almost as tasteless and disrespectful as a certain candidate who actually threw medals/ribbons over a fence and voted "Yes" to put troops into battle and then voted "No" to funding for their equipment, which by the way is all on record.
Cleetus
August 31st, 2004, 04:30 PM
Yes, almost as tasteless and disrespectful as a certain candidate who actually threw medals/ribbons over a fence and voted "Yes" to put troops into battle and then voted "No" to funding for their equipment, which by the way is all on record.
Oh please, he voted no on the exact wording the president forced them to take, as he would have vetoed the bill they were trying to push through for the same amount of funding but under different stipulations that would have made some of the money a loan, forcing Iraq to pay us back. Peddle your lies and half truths elsewhere.
Zil
August 31st, 2004, 04:34 PM
Oh please, he voted no on the exact wording the president forced them to take, as he would have vetoed the bill they were trying to push through for the same amount of funding but under different stipulations that would have made some of the money a loan, forcing Iraq to pay us back.
Peddle your lies and half truths elsewhere.
Right, the whole "I voted for it, before I voted against it". If the man seriously wanted to fund the troops and that is a top priority, did it matter who paid for it?
And you agree that Kerry throwing the medals over the fence was tasteless and dissrepectful?
Commander Klarg
August 31st, 2004, 04:35 PM
Yes, almost as tasteless and disrespectful as a certain candidate who actually threw medals/ribbons over a fence and voted "Yes" to put troops into battle and then voted "No" to funding for their equipment, which by the way is all on record.
Nevermind that the No vote was against the method of paying for the equipment (ie. having Iraq pay it back vs not), and not the equipment itself. Conveinient that the Kerry bashers leave that part out.
Zil
August 31st, 2004, 04:37 PM
Nevermind that the No vote was against the method of paying for the equipment (ie. having Iraq pay it back vs not), and not the equipment itself. Conveinient that the Kerry bashers leave that part out.
Again, if the man seriously wanted to fund the troops and that is a top priority, did it matter who paid for it? 88 other senators disagreed with Mr. Kerry, including most from his own party.
WebHead
August 31st, 2004, 04:39 PM
Absolutely tasteless and disrespectful.
But to Bush Republicans our military personnel are throw aways anyway. Trot them out for the rousing round of applause. Then cut their benefits and send them into battle with out enough troops, or equipment.
I wonder how McCain feels about speaking for Bush now?
Yeah. Bush must've offered something very special to McCain in order to get him to go up there and speak like that.
I feel sorry for the families that have had to put their money together to buy bullet-proof vests for their sons/daughters who are soliders in Iraq.
Cleetus
August 31st, 2004, 04:45 PM
Again, if the man seriously wanted to fund the troops and that is a top priority, did it matter who paid for it? 88 other senators disagreed with Mr. Kerry, including most from his own party.
Then why was it President Bush said he would veto any other plan? It would have meant funding either way right?
Cleetus
August 31st, 2004, 04:46 PM
Right, the whole "I voted for it, before I voted against it". If the man seriously wanted to fund the troops and that is a top priority, did it matter who paid for it?
And you agree that Kerry throwing the medals over the fence was tasteless and dissrepectful?
Not once did I ever say anything about the medals, I don't agree with it, but it wasn't me, it was his choice and freedom to do as he chooses to.
Zil
August 31st, 2004, 04:46 PM
I feel sorry for the families that have had to put their money together to buy bullet-proof vests for their sons/daughters who are soliders in Iraq.
And to think that a senator that is running for president could have voted to equip them better and didn't. Shame on him and those 11 senators that voted with him, because they were too worried that it would cost too much to protect their safety.
Cleetus
August 31st, 2004, 04:50 PM
And to think that a senator that is running for president could have voted to equip them better and didn't. Shame on him and those 11 senators that voted with him, because they were too worried that it would cost too much to protect their safety.
Dude, it would have been funded any way possible, they wanted a reasoned thought out plan rather then the botched up non-thinking plans the present administration has been throwing. Suddenly you also forget that it was a very close vote in the House.
You are aware there will be another vote on more funds, it is all a matter whether or not it can be held off until after the elections.
Commander Klarg
August 31st, 2004, 04:51 PM
Again, if the man seriously wanted to fund the troops and that is a top priority, did it matter who paid for it? 88 other senators disagreed with Mr. Kerry, including most from his own party.
It is still disingenuous to say Kerry was against funding the troops when his vote was determined by fiscal responsibility, not emnity towards our soldiers. I applaud him for standing up for fiscal responsibility when few others did, even if it was in vain.
Zil
August 31st, 2004, 04:57 PM
Dude, it would have been funded any way possible, they wanted a reasoned thought out plan rather then the botched up non-thinking plans the present administration has been throwing. Suddenly you also forget that it was a very close vote in the House.
You are aware there will be another vote on more funds, it is all a matter whether or not it can be held off until after the elections.
Here's the basics of what he did:
"If Iraq doesn't pay for this, then screw the whole bill, I'm not voting for it."
when someone who was concerned for the safety of the troops would say:
"Who cares if we have to foot the bill and how much it costs, keep those guys safe."
You would think as a combat veteran, that Kerry would vote for the measure regardless who was paying for it, as long as it helped the troops.
Zil
August 31st, 2004, 04:59 PM
It is still disingenuous to say Kerry was against funding the troops when his vote was determined by fiscal responsibility, not emnity towards our soldiers. I applaud him for standing up for fiscal responsibility when few others did, even if it was in vain.
And when has he ever voted "No" on a bill because it included wasteful pork? If you want to argue fiscal responsibility, do it on another bill that doesn't involve the safety and equipping of our soldiers.
jitBob
August 31st, 2004, 05:03 PM
And to think that a senator that is running for president could have voted to equip them better and didn't. Shame on him and those 11 senators that voted with him, because they were too worried that it would cost too much to protect their safety.
The lack of equipment happened long before that vote.
Cleetus
August 31st, 2004, 05:03 PM
Here's the basics of what he did:
"If Iraq doesn't pay for this, then screw the whole bill, I'm not voting for it."
when someone who was concerned for the safety of the troops would say:
"Who cares if we have to foot the bill and how much it costs, keep those guys safe."
You would think as a combat veteran, that Kerry would vote for the measure regardless who was paying for it, as long as it helped the troops.
No, actually this is more then about what happened (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12131-2004Jul24.html)
Pretty much the same in every account I have read.
Sorry, in the end the situation really looks like it is Kerry that can stand in the face of adversity and hold on to some actual principles. Honestly, the more I am reading into the half truths by the media, the more I am going back to voting for this guy.
You would think that if Bush had actually served and was actually a true conservative he wouldn't throw both our money and our soldiers lives away.
Zil
August 31st, 2004, 05:09 PM
The lack of equipment happened long before that vote.
Let me clarify.
I know the lack of equipment was there before the vote (the Army didn't account for the types of weapons used by the insurgents). The vote was to better equip these guys. Kerry could have voted to better equip them, he didn't.
Cleetus
August 31st, 2004, 05:45 PM
Let me repeat myself, he wanted to in a fiscally responsible way, unlike the President.
Larommi
August 31st, 2004, 06:19 PM
Sorry, thats not funny to me. While I do not agree what Kerry did, I dont agree with this either.
This is no more funny or cool than that smear movie Moore did.
Enough of the smears...lets get some facts. Like what the canidates plan on doing, not what they did.
JaxSon
August 31st, 2004, 06:35 PM
OK, obviously the huge majority of people here do not like the mocking. And, I must admit that I wasn't crazy about it either.
But let me clarify, this was not a mocking of all Purple Heart honorees. It was an attempt to mock Kerry for his extremely minor injuries that warranted his Purple Hearts. From what I've been able to find out, he never spent any time in the hospital for any of his injuries and is not receiving any disability of any kind for those injuries. There have even been accusations that he requested one of his Purple Hearts for a minor injury from his first commander and was turned down...then when a new commander transferred in, he requested it again and this time it was approved. It just all seems pretty sleazy to me.
As everybody here knows, there are a heck of a lot of veterans that weren't so lucky. I have nothing but the highest regard for war veterans.
Anyway, I sincerely apologize to the people that I offended and I will make a concerted effort not to post such sleazy posts in the future. Please don't hold this against the President or all Republicans in general.
WebHead
August 31st, 2004, 07:44 PM
Here's the basics of what he did:
"If Iraq doesn't pay for this, then screw the whole bill, I'm not voting for it."
when someone who was concerned for the safety of the troops would say:
"Who cares if we have to foot the bill and how much it costs, keep those guys safe."...
They should've figured all that out before rushing into a war they didn't have a plan for. That way we wouldn't have to throw money around like it's no object.
WebHead
August 31st, 2004, 07:50 PM
OK, obviously the huge majority of people here do not like the mocking. And, I must admit that I wasn't crazy about it either.
But let me clarify, this was not a mocking of all Purple Heart honorees. It was an attempt to mock Kerry for his extremely minor injuries that warranted his Purple Hearts. From what I've been able to find out, he never spent any time in the hospital for any of his injuries and is not receiving any disability of any kind for those injuries. There have even been accusations that he requested one of his Purple Hearts for a minor injury from his first commander and was turned down...then when a new commander transferred in, he requested it again and this time it was approved. It just all seems pretty sleazy to me.
As everybody here knows, there are a heck of a lot of veterans that weren't so lucky. I have nothing but the highest regard for war veterans.
Anyway, I sincerely apologize to the people that I offended and I will make a concerted effort not to post such sleazy posts in the future. Please don't hold this against the President or all Republicans in general.
No no. Please post away. I want to know about this stuff. You are not the one who offended anyone. The delegates are the ones who acted irresponsibly. You just reported the story. I mean,.. you did report it in a Fox News kind of way,.. but thats to be expected of you because George W Bush (who did not serve in any war ever) is your hero.
WebHead
August 31st, 2004, 07:55 PM
I would like to point out that the purple heart does not signify the extent of the damage of an injury,... it is symbolic of heroism. What the neocons don't get is that a true hero puts his life on the line to save another and doesn't run away to hide behind daddy when the going gets tough. I don't care if Kerry had a slight scratch, a large puncture wound, a split end or a hang-nail,... he got the injury while being heroic saving another mans life. That is why he earned the purple heart award!
flyboy747
August 31st, 2004, 10:04 PM
I agree that this is not a laughing matter. Even if they were only aiming it at Senator Kerry, not everyone that has ever served or received this award, I do not think it was appropriate.
However, I don't think that President Bush should have to apologize or whatever you're wanting him to do for what these people did. As was already mentioned, the Republicans have not asked Senator Kerry to apologize for the things that have been said by any of the 527s that have bashed Bush (moveon.org for instance) or by Michael Moore. I think that the ones that wore them should apologize for this disrespect.
but thats to be expected of you because George W Bush (who did not serve in any war ever) is your hero.
Wasn't it also Senator Kerry that said in 1992 in an NPR piece that
I'm here personally to express my anger, as a veteran, that a president who would stand before this nation in his inaugural address and promise to put Vietnam behind us is now breaking yet another promise and trying to use Vietnam and service in order to get himself re-elected. That is not an act of leadership, that is an act of shame and cowardice.
And also in the Congressional Records (10/08/92, p. S17709) Kerry said:
Mr. President, you and I know that if support or opposition to the war were to become a litmus test for leadership, America would never have leaders or recover from the divisions created by that war. You and I know that if service or nonservice in the war is to become a test of qualification for high office, you would not have a Vice President, nor would you have a Secretary of Defense and our Nation would never recover from the divisions created by that war.
So, according to him at that point in time when he was defending former President Clinton and the allegations that were coming out of his draft-dodging during the Vietnam war, prior service in war shouldn't be something that is used to gain a political position.
Just my $.02. That is all for now.
WebHead
August 31st, 2004, 10:53 PM
I agree that this is not a laughing matter. Even if they were only aiming it at Senator Kerry, not everyone that has ever served or received this award, I do not think it was appropriate.
However, I don't think that President Bush should have to apologize or whatever you're wanting him to do for what these people did. As was already mentioned, the Republicans have not asked Senator Kerry to apologize for the things that have been said by any of the 527s that have bashed Bush (moveon.org for instance) or by Michael Moore. I think that the ones that wore them should apologize for this disrespect.
Wasn't it also Senator Kerry that said in 1992 in an NPR piece that
And also in the Congressional Records (10/08/92, p. S17709) Kerry said:
So, according to him at that point in time when he was defending former President Clinton and the allegations that were coming out of his draft-dodging during the Vietnam war, prior service in war shouldn't be something that is used to gain a political position.
Just my $.02. That is all for now.
I am not asking him to apologize. I am asking him to condemn these delegates actions.
flyboy747
August 31st, 2004, 11:19 PM
I am not asking him to apologize. I am asking him to condemn these delegates actions.
Ok. Not apologize but condemn. My bad. :)
Still though, on a somewhat related topic, since you are saying that President Bush should condemn these delegates as well as previously being told by the Kerry campaign and other democrats that he should condemn the Swiftboat Vets ads (which he did and condemned ads attacking not only him but Kerry as well), should Kerry not also be asked to condemn these ads and all of the things that have been said by these organizations and groups about Bush?
WebHead
August 31st, 2004, 11:25 PM
Ok. Not apologize but condemn. My bad. :)
Still though, on a somewhat related topic, since you are saying that President Bush should condemn these delegates as well as previously being told by the Kerry campaign and other democrats that he should condemn the Swiftboat Vets ads (which he did and condemned ads attacking not only him but Kerry as well), should Kerry not also be asked to condemn these ads and all of the things that have been said by these organizations and groups about Bush?
I personally am offended by the fact that these delegates are shaming the integrity of the award of purple heart for American soldiers that earned the award in the Vietnam war. Therefore I am asking Bush to condemn the ugly act because it is his duty to do so as our current commander in chief out of respect to the soldiers. This is why I posted the thread with the phone number so that people can call the Bush campaign headquarters with complaints on this matter. This is what I am doing about it.
If you have a specific action that you would like Kerry to condemn,.. then by all means, ask him to condemn it. Get the number, post it. Do whatever you need to do if you feel strongly enough about it.
I hope this hasn't come across as me saying that I'm not offended by the actions of these delegates - I am very offended that they did this.
thirdfey
September 1st, 2004, 08:43 AM
Didn't drudgereport have a picture linking to a news site of John Kerry during his speech asking Bush to condemn the ads while standing behind him was a person holding up a Bush AWOL bumper sticker?
Wayward Clam
September 1st, 2004, 10:50 AM
And since when is making fun of someone for going AWOL equally as bad as mocking an award for heroism?
jitBob
September 1st, 2004, 11:05 AM
And since when is making fun of someone for going AWOL equally as bad as mocking an award for heroism?
Hmmm...
ilovetheusers
September 1st, 2004, 11:07 AM
And since when is making fun of someone for going AWOL equally as bad as mocking an award for heroism?
It's showing the hypocracy of the Kerry camp for calling upon anyone to do something about the 527 groups.
Also, as an FYI, the purple heart is awarded for wounds recieved in battle, not bravery. :thumbs:
thirdfey
September 1st, 2004, 12:11 PM
And since when is making fun of someone for going AWOL equally as bad as mocking an award for heroism?
You may interpret what they are doing is mocking that award but I have a feeling their intent was to mock Kerry because they feel no heroism was committed for recieving the award from information they most likely recieved from the swift vets. I'm sorry, let me correct that, the Funded by Supporters of George Bush Swift Vets because it wouldn't look as bad if they were funded by supporters of Kerry?
Kerry can not get up on stage and say, "I call on George Bush to condemn the actions of these swift vets for condemning my actions in Vietnam" when at the same time he has someone standing behind him doing the same thing to the other party.
Here is description of the Purple Heart I got from http://www.purpleheart.org
The PURPLE HEART is awarded to members of the armed forces of the U.S. who are wounded by an instrument of war in the hands of the enemy and posthumously to the next of kin in the name of those who are killed in action or die of wounds received in action. It is specifically a combat decoration.
And hears a more official souding one https://www.perscom.army.mil/tagd/tioh/Awards/PH1.html
WebHead
September 1st, 2004, 12:52 PM
It's showing the hypocracy of the Kerry camp for calling upon anyone to do something about the 527 groups.
Also, as an FYI, the purple heart is awarded for wounds recieved in battle, not bravery. :thumbs:
You're right,.. but not every wounded soldier gets one. ;)
The injury comes as a result of bravery which then earns you a purple heart.
Ya_know
September 1st, 2004, 01:40 PM
You're right,.. but not every wounded soldier gets one. ;)
The injury comes as a result of bravery which then earns you a purple heart.
No, you get the award for an injury in combat period. Unless you were a deserter from your unit, if you get injured and someone submitted the paper work, you get the award. Bravery is only assumed since all men that go into combat are brave men (now women too). But Valor is decorated with other medals.
techs
September 1st, 2004, 01:46 PM
No, you get the award for an injury in combat period. Unless you were a deserter from your unit, if you get injured and someone submitted the paper work, you get the award. Bravery is only assumed since all men that go into combat are brave men (now women too). But Valor is decorated with other medals.
And I would like to add I don't believe you can put yourself in for a Purple Heart. It must be a doctor or a superior officer. Am I right Ya_know?
Wayward Clam
September 1st, 2004, 07:58 PM
No, you get the award for an injury in combat period. Unless you were a deserter from your unit, if you get injured and someone submitted the paper work, you get the award. Bravery is only assumed since all men that go into combat are brave men (now women too). But Valor is decorated with other medals.
So basically what you're saying is, if you're AWOL and don't go into combat, you're not assumed to be brave and can't win a Purple Heart? :cool:
Duke of Rezin
September 1st, 2004, 08:38 PM
No, its saying that if you are AWOL and don't go into battle then you are a criminal. Medals are not awarded to criminals, only soldiers.
WebHead
September 1st, 2004, 11:11 PM
No, you get the award for an injury in combat period. Unless you were a deserter from your unit, if you get injured and someone submitted the paper work, you get the award. Bravery is only assumed since all men that go into combat are brave men (now women too). But Valor is decorated with other medals.
So then based on what you wrote,.. then I would have to assume that George W Bush is not a brave man because A> He is a deserter of his unit based on his past military record, and B> He never went into combat because he was hiding behind his daddy. Thank you for clearing up what I've been trying to say for 4 years how.
WebHead
September 1st, 2004, 11:12 PM
So basically what you're saying is, if you're AWOL and don't go into combat, you're not assumed to be brave and can't win a Purple Heart? :cool:
Oh,.. I guess you already beat me to this observation. And you worded it better too. Damnit! :p
Ya_know
September 2nd, 2004, 06:25 AM
So then based on what you wrote,.. then I would have to assume that George W Bush is not a brave man because A> He is a deserter of his unit based on his past military record, and B> He never went into combat because he was hiding behind his daddy. Thank you for clearing up what I've been trying to say for 4 years how.
Bush's record is open to the public, and there is no scrutiny into your accusation of his being AWOL, because his time has been accounted for. Unlike Kerry's closed records, which he is still protecting...and why is that??? :devil:
jitBob
September 2nd, 2004, 10:28 AM
Bush's record is open to the public, and there is no scrutiny into your accusation of his being AWOL, because his time has been accounted for. Unlike Kerry's closed records, which he is still protecting...and why is that??? :devil:
Not all of Bush's time has been accounted for.
thirdfey
September 2nd, 2004, 10:36 AM
Not all of Bush's time has been accounted for.
Then it is settled. We are at an impass. Everybody agree to disagree and go their sperate ways so we can slam the candidates about something else.
Wayward Clam
September 2nd, 2004, 11:16 AM
Then it is settled. We are at an impass. Everybody agree to disagree and go their sperate ways so we can slam the candidates about something else.
Not quite. What some of the people here have actually agreed is that:
-There is circumstantial evidence that Bush is a traitor, but no concrete proof in this instance
-There is circumstantial evidence that Kerry is a hero, but no concrete proof in this instance.
And BTW, get your French right. It's "impasse". Or is this another Freedom Fries thing? :p
WebHead
September 2nd, 2004, 02:08 PM
Bush's record is open to the public, and there is no scrutiny into your accusation of his being AWOL, because his time has been accounted for. Unlike Kerry's closed records, which he is still protecting...and why is that??? :devil:
No. He had attendance issues (this is considered being AWOL by teh military). He even received a warning letter about it which he signed. It's all in the link I provided in the "compare records" thread. Go read it.
WebHead
September 2nd, 2004, 02:12 PM
This is the definition of AWOL:
Main Entry: AWOL
Pronunciation: 'A-"wol, 'A-"d&-b&l-"yü-"O-'el
Function: abbreviation
absent without leave
adj 1: absent without permission; "truant schoolboys"; "the soldier was AWOL for almost a week" [syn: truant] 2: having deserted your post or station without leave n : one who is away or absent without leave [syn: AWOL]
This is the document that Bush signed for poor attendance:
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc23.gif
Controversial subject? I don't think so. These are the unbias facts.
Ya_know
September 2nd, 2004, 04:41 PM
No. He had attendance issues (this is considered being AWOL by teh military). He even received a warning letter about it which he signed. It's all in the link I provided in the "compare records" thread. Go read it.
Fact remains, Bush's full record is out there for you to judge. Kerry's is locked up nice and tight...
Kerry's got something to hide, on top of that he's a pussy!
windrivers.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc., All Rights Reserved.